Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20.02.2021, and to restore their patta in terms of the proceedings of the fourth respondent, Tahsildar, dated 31.12.2020. The dispute pertained to the cancellation of a land patta. While the writ petition was pending, the eighth respondent, along with his father and brother, filed a separate writ petition. By an order dated 26.04.2024, this court directed the first respondent, District Collector, to conduct an enquiry after hearing all concerned, including the petitioners herein, and to pass final orders on merits within twelve weeks. Pursuant to that direction, the District Revenue Officer held an enquiry in which both the petitioners and the private respondents participated. The District Revenue Officer then passed a considered order on 07.02.2025, thereby superseding the earlier order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. When the present writ petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment, while the counsel for the respondents 8 and 9 submitted that nothing survived for further adjudication in view of the subsequent order. The court noted that the death of the sixth respondent was reported, but since his interest was protected by the presence of the fifth respondent before the District Revenue Officer, no impleadment of legal heirs was necessary. The court held that the writ petition could not be sustained in light of the subsequent event—the order of the District Revenue Officer. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the District Revenue Officer's order dated 07.02.2025 if they were aggrieved, in any manner known to law. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Effect of Subsequent Order Rendering Petition Infructuous - Disposal with Liberty - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioners challenged an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling their patta. During the pendency of the writ petition, a separate proceeding initiated by a private respondent resulted in a court direction to the District Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits after hearing all parties, including the petitioners. The District Revenue Officer passed a considered order on 07.02.2025. Held that the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer stood superseded, and the writ petition could not be sustained. The petition was accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the District Revenue Officer's order if aggrieved. (Paras 4, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition survives in view of the subsequent order passed by the District Revenue Officer on 07.02.2025.
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous recording the subsequent event of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer on 07.02.2025. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge the said order if aggrieved, in the manner known to law. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A writ petition becomes infructuous when a subsequent order by a higher authority on the same subject matter and after due hearing supersedes the impugned order
- and the court may dispose of the writ petition without adjudicating merits
- giving liberty to challenge the subsequent order if aggrieved.
